Eliminate 90% of the Human Race?

by

Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

In elementary schools, it often begins with a crush. During the rebellious years of high school, we try to act as if we dislike all of them—even though we still have our favorites. Then, in college, we respect them for their education, and in graduate or professional school our respect oftentimes turns into loyal admiration. Most of us can look back through our educational years and remember teachers who really stood out—teachers that made a difference in our lives. These are the ones who made an imprint on us—and as such, we often pattern our own values, beliefs, and ideology accordingly.

That’s all well and good when teachers maintain integrity and adhere to a strong moral code. But what happens when students worship a professor who suggests that we humans are no better than bacteria? And that the world would be a better place if we had an airborne version of Ebola that would wipe out 90% of the human population—a virtual holocaust to cleanse the Earth? To make matters worse, what message are we sending when we designate such a man as the “2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist?”

What does it take to earn the title of “Distinguished Texas Scientist”? Well, obviously, it does not hurt to do research in Texas. But since when is suggesting the human race needed to be wiped out a good thing? This is precisely what Dr. Eric Pianka did at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. The meeting, held March 3-5, 2006, honored Pianka, an evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert, as the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

In describing the event, attendee Forrest Mims observed:

Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away. This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka’s strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind. Suddenly I forgot that I was a member of the Texas Academy of Science and chairman of its Environmental Science Section. Instead, I grabbed a notepad so I could take on the role of science reporter (2006).

In his recounting of the wicked speech, Mims noted that one of the first planks Pianka laid was that humans were no better than animals. Recounting the story of a neighbor who questioned his interest in lizards, Pianka responded: “What good are you?” He then felt compelled to announce: “We are no better than bacteria!” (Mims, 2006).

From there, the speech took a decisively wicked turn, as Pianka insisted the Earth would not be able to sustain life without drastic measures. He proposed the only solution was to eliminate most of the world’s population. Reflecting back on the conference, Mims noted:

Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number. He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved (2006, emp. added).

If Pianka’s words do not send chills up your spine you need to check your pulse. How does it feel knowing that this man is idolized, to the point that one of his students was heard to say, “I worship Dr. Pianka” (Mims, 2006). One wonders how many young graduate students currently enrolled at various universities “worship” this man and would be more than willing to work on creating an airborne strain of Ebola.

One of the saddest parts of this story was the audiences’ reaction. Instead of being outraged or standing up against Pianka, his own colleagues gave him a standing ovation. Mims observed:

When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn’t merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause (Mims, 2006).

This account should be a sobering reminder as to why there should be restraints on scientific research. Most scientists do not want any restrictions on their research, and in many cases their research has out-paced ethical laws. They contend that they should be a “self-governing body,” and yet we find them giving a standing ovation to a man who suggests that “billions must soon die” in order to solve the “population crisis.” In an article titled “Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish,” the World Net Daily noted:

During a question-and-answer session, the audience laughed approvingly when Pianka offered the bird flu as another vehicle toward achieving his goal. They also chuckled when he suggested it was time to sterilize everyone on Earth. “What kind of reception have you received as you have presented these ideas to other audiences that are not representative of us?” asked one member of the audience. “I speak to the converted!” Pianka replied (see “Scientists Cheer...,” 2006).

Converted from what? Sanity?! Here is a man who is willing to press atheistic evolution to its logical conclusion. This is the same man who approves of the Chinese “one-child” policy and proclaimed that smarter people have fewer kids. As a society we must quickly acknowledge the fact that our children and grandchildren are placing many professors on pedestals. It’s time we hold those professors accountable for the seeds they are planting in the hearts and minds of our young people.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.